Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Why National Democrats Rolled Over for Chris Christie"--- The Daily Beast [View all]bvar22
(39,909 posts)5. Support for Lincoln was NOT "to hold the Senate".
If you had read the link, you would know that.
*Lincoln had ZERO chance to win the General.
*Her Democratic Primary Challenger, Lt Gov Bill Halter, was polling BETTER than Lincoln against the Republican in the General.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Why National Democrats Rolled Over for Chris Christie"--- The Daily Beast [View all]
bvar22
Nov 2013
OP
So what? What does ANY of that have to do with Democrats slamming the Dem candidate and endorsing a
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#23
National party didn't play in NJ because it had no chance of changing the outcome.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#7
Especially when the Republican gets FREE ADVERTISING from prominent DEMOCRATS.
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#24
I never expected the current DNC chair to come out for a Progressive Dem. Has that EVER
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#40
Yes, after intense criticism from Dems for their LACK of support, we get a few words,
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#43
Dean showed this to be bad politics. He ran in every state and WON. Of course that other
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#47
Their support of Lincoln cost Dems that race. It was another example of what happened in
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#37
Enough whining about the national party not being too smart to waste money on an unwinnable race.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#6
Sure, Obama could have gone all in and turned New Jersey into a national referendum.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#10
Instead, the choice was made to give an extremist Republican tha National Stage.
bvar22
Nov 2013
#15
Odd analogy--going all in on a single high profile race is almost the exact opposite
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#19
It's not the national party's function to bail out a dysfunctional state party.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#22
And, yet, they go all in to "bailout" a dysfunctional conservative like Blanche Lincoln
bvar22
Nov 2013
#45
Really? Then why did he do it for Lincoln, who had no chance of winning? It did stop the other
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#38
quid pro quo for Lincoln--she votes for ACA, he endorses her in the primary.
geek tragedy
Nov 2013
#39
BS, Christie's 'handling of Sandy' was under serious attack and you would know that if you had been
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#27
No, I'm facing the reality that the Dem Leadership did not support its own candidate nor did it use
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#30
When your own party is joining the opposition to derail your campaign, denying you the financial
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#33
Many centrists prefer republicans over progressive Democrats. It's the "Third Way" of thinking.
Zorra
Nov 2013
#12
Yes, that is the truth. I think they would be happy if they could get rid of Progressives out of the
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#29
they didnt want to appear to lose to christie in a proxy war for 2016
La Lioness Priyanka
Nov 2013
#41
Now wait a minute. I regularly see Obama supporters here insisting that liberals support
Marr
Nov 2013
#57
Many people are defending Chrisite and his endorsers AND in reaity if a contest is actually
Bluenorthwest
Nov 2013
#67